Gooden v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., et al.,

Filing 10

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/18/11 ORDERING that Defendants have up to and including December 19, 2011 to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

NIALL P. MCCARTHY (State Bar No. 160175)
[e-mail]
JUSTIN T. BERGER (State Bar No. 250346)
[e-mail]
ERIC J. BUESCHER (State Bar No. 271323)
[e-mail]
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SHEILA GOODEN

8
9
10
11
12
13

MICHAEL J. STEINER (State Bar No. 112079)
[e-mail]
PHILIP BARILOVITS (State Bar No. 199944)
[e-mail]
SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

14
15
16

Attorneys for Defendants,
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.
SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19 SHEILA GOODEN, an individual,

Case No.: 2-11-CV-02595-JAM-DAD

20

FURTHER STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING TIME FOR SUNTRUST
MORTGAGE, INC. AND SUNTRUST
BANKS, INC. TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

21
22

vs.

23
24 SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. a Virginia
corporation, SUNTRUST BANKS, INC., a
25 Georgia corporation,
26

Defendants.

27
28
11950/0104/983690.1

FURTHER STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Case No. 2-11-CV-02595-JAM-DAD

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1

WHEREAS, Sheila Gooden (“Plaintiff”) filed a Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) in the

2

above-entitled case against defendants SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and SunTrust Banks, Inc. (together,

3

the “Defendants”);

4

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants stipulated, pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 144, that

5

Defendants had up to and including November 23, 2011 to answer or otherwise respond to the

6

Complaint;

7

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants are in still in discussions regarding a possible

8

amendment of the Complaint and/or resolution of the case and Plaintiff and Defendants have

9

stipulated that Defendants may have up to and including December 19, 2011 to answer or otherwise

10

respond to the complaint

11

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, SUBJECT TO COURT ORDER, THAT:

12

Defendants have up to and including December 19, 2011 to answer or otherwise respond to

13
14
15

the Complaint.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: November 18, 2011

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP

16
17

By:

18

/s/ Justin T. Berger
JUSTIN T. BERGER

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SHEILA GOODEN

19
20
DATED: November 18, 2011

SEVERSON & WERSON

21
22

By:

23

/s/ Philip Barilovits
PHILIP BARILOVITS

Attorneys for Defendants
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.
SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.

24
25
26
27
11950/0104/983690.1

28

-1 FURTHER STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Case No. 2-11-CV-02595-JAM-DAD

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

ORDER

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

DATED: 11/18/2011
/s/ John A. Mendez_______________
HON. JOHN A. MENDEZ
U. S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
11950/0104/983690.1

28

-1 FURTHER STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Case No. 2-11-CV-02595-JAM-DAD

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com